On Sep 27, 2007, at 6:11 PM, tgies wrote:
Yes, Ruby has cute syntax. It's still a joke in terms of
implementation. And yeah, I did some poking around. It's the
interpreter, not XChat.
Yeah (speaking as someone who lives in Ruby every day), Ruby's
implementation could really use some work. F
tgies wrote:
> Today I found out that certain Ruby environments (I discovered this
> playing around with XChat's Ruby scripting plugin, as an exercise in
> determining whether or not this Ruby tripe the kids won't shut up
> about is any good), when asked to unload a given module/script
> containing
On 9/27/07, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> While hating the prettiest kid on the block is a fine past time, you sure you
> shouldn't be kicking X-Chat instead?
Yes, Ruby has cute syntax. It's still a joke in terms of
implementation. And yeah, I did some poking around. It's the
interpreter, not XChat.
Today I found out that certain Ruby environments (I discovered this
playing around with XChat's Ruby scripting plugin, as an exercise in
determining whether or not this Ruby tripe the kids won't shut up
about is any good), when asked to unload a given module/script
containing a single static method
